On 11/15/2009 07:34 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 13:58 -0500, Michael T. Dean wrote:
>>> I think the overscan issue is more of a "at the themer's discretion"
>> thing.
>>>> See, I think it's exactly not a theming issue at all. I think it's an
> underlying UI design issue. I agree totally with how the screen-size
> wizard works, allowing one to fine tune the UI so that it fits within
> the viewable portion of their set.
>> What I disagree with is that scaling the entire window is the way to
> make it fit. I think that the window should always be whatever size the
> screen is and that the widgets on the window should be moved in response
> to the screen-size wizard.
>> That is for a set with less viewable area than another, the offset from
> the edges of the window the widgets are painted on are greater and the
> widgets themselves either scale smaller or are packed tighter to deal
> with the reduced real-estate.
>> So I see this as all operating below the themer's task.
Understood, and there was just a discussion of this very idea in IRC a
couple of days ago. The problem is that some themes are designed such
that widgets and areas that appear at some times line up with
graphics/"holes" in the background. So, if the background is scaled to
full screen size and the widgets put into a smaller window on top, these
themes won't line up.
How the UI experts will solve the issue is something I (admittedly about
as far as one could get from being a UI expert) couldn't even guess.
Some of the ideas mentioned were a theme-specified background color
(that's drawn in a full-screen window behind the scaled
background/widgets) or even a back-background image or just a
theme-specified switch to scale the background independently of the
widget area or ...
Mike